Resuming after break with Dr Badgett being examined by David Boies.

(using Q & A format since both counsel and witness’s last names start with B)

Q: Tell me about your books and articles

A: When Gay People Get Married, peer reviewed.

Q: Tells us what happens in society when gays marry?

A: Yes

Q: In 2008, did you write articles about CA?

A: We estimated the fiscal impact on CA’s budget

Q: (plaintiffs 1268).

Q: Did you also analyze this in an article (1283) in 2005 for Stanford?

A: yes, we estimated the fiscal impact of G&Ls marrying at that time.

Q: Have you made presentations in the US at conferences?

A: (Lists prestigious places and universities she has spoken at)

Q what is Division 44 of the APA?
A: G&L Issues of the American Psychological Association
Q: Have you spoken there?
A Yes I gave a presidential address to the entire APA sponsored and invited by Division 44
Q Papers and reviewed articles at conferences?
A: Allied social sciences, political science associations, national council on family relations, american statistical association, several others
Q Have you peer reviewed articles proposed for publication on same sex couples?
A: I have reviewed papers for Demography, some Economics journal, American Sociological Review
Q Testified before governemt bodies?
A House Education and Labor cOmmittee, House committee on governement reform about federal employees. ALso state legislative bodies: CA, AK, MA, HI, NH, MD.
Q: Offer Professor Badgett as an expert
Walker: Very well, hearing no objection, you may proceed.

Q: Please look at Demonstrative Ten and tell us what your opinions you will offer
A:
1. Substantial economic harm to SS couples and their children from prop 8
2. no adverse effect on opposite sex couples
3. same sex couples are very similar to opposite sex couples demograhically & economically
4. economic hardship on the state of CA

Q: Your first opinion: what is the main benefit of marriage?
A: economically, it is about commitment of two people, allows two people to organize their lives more efficiently, organize their household and their income and time. It also has an important role in "transaction costs" — 2 people married can avoid the cost of a will, since marriage conveys inheritorhsip. Also benefits come from the state and employers that aren’t offered to non-married families.

Q: Look at demonstrative eleven, a list you prepared about the economic harm to same sex couples if theycan’t marry. Let’s go through that. You say marriage provides benefits that DP doesn’t. First, you say there is greater specialization of labor, explain that.

A: Families that can divide labor within the family can produce economically more efficiently if they are married.

Q: Reduced transaction costs means?

A: Rduced cost of agreements (wills) but as fortunes change, one partner gets a big raise, marriage means they don’t have renegotiate every time. Marriage is understood.

Q: Health and insurance benefits, but we’ve hesrd from others about thast. Then you say Greater economies of scale. Which means?

A: They can live together as two poeple more cheaply and efficiently than individually

Q: Stronger statement of commitment means?

A: Marriage is quite different as a statment of commitment that DP, underlying what the people ar esaying to one another and a statement recognized and reinforced by the people outside the marriage.

Q: Greater validation and social acceptance of relationship?
A> Other people treat married people differnetly

Q: More positive workplace outcomes from reduced discrimination?
A: Different kinds of work experiences and economic gains if employees are married. SS couples who can’t marry may be treated differently than married people. Effects of this discrimination may by on their work performance and their future economic gains: promotions, raises.

Q: Some of these costs may not be quanitifiable but are substantial?
A: Difficult to quantify specifically, but can be quite large. Some we can approximate, others we can’t be precise as to dollar value.

Q: You say these costs are imposed on all SS CA couples who would marry if they could.
A: Non-DPs have none of the legal provisions marriage would imply; DPs don’t have the FULL effect of the possible benefits as if they were allowed to marry.

Q: Do DPs suffer because they cannot marry?
A: Yes
Q: And you said there are non-DPs who’ve chosen not to DP because it isn’t marriage?
A: Yes, a great number of couples.

Q: Demonstrative 12, please?
A: When SS couples could marry, 18,000 did. Only 2,077 DPs during this time period. And some of those DPs may have been different sex couples if over 62 yo. Can marry or DP.

Q: Look at Demonstrative 13 please
A: This is from a study showing what SS couples did in the first year of "take-up" of differenet legal statuses in only the first year. 37% married; 12% Civil Unions; 10% domestic partnerships in the first year.

And in CA, 5% of SS couples registered as DPs in the first year of DP. In the six months marriage was available. 21% of SS CA couples married.

Q: About those who are not DP registered, demonstrative 14, please.
You are dealing here with those SameSex couples who would marry but would not register as a DP. Talk about this.
A: Those couples suffer lack of health insruance and employment beenfits. THey pay higher state income taxes, thier partners beenfits are taxble, can’t file jointly, thousands of dollars of transactions costs per year.

q; Can you quantify economic and non-eco costs to non-DPs who can’t marry?
A: HArd to do, but very likely in the thousands of dollars per year for each couple. Looking at the take-up rates for SS couples, thousands can’t marry and have also not DPed. Thousands of couples, thousands of dollars.

Q: Why SS couples who would marry might not DP?
A: A variety of reasons, researched: second class status, less value as a whole alternative, data suggests that when people have a choice (as in MA) people choose marriage. The value is that marriage is recognized outside the couple, validated socially and governmentally. TO the couple rthemselves, DP sounds clinical and businesslike.

Q: Inability of SS couples to marry affect children? How so?
A: Marriage can help children, resources are greater, thousands of dollars spent by non-married couple can’t now be spent on children.

Q: Look at demonstrative 15; effects on SS couples and their children.
(PX1267) What was that?
A: A survey of MA SS couples

Q: How large
A: Dept of Public Health, large group, subsample of married SS was 558 individuals.

Q Representative?
A No, drew on a mailing list in MA that worked with DPH.

Q: But it provided a good reference?
A: Yes, they aren’t very different, but not representative. Some difference, but overlap of experiences.

Walker: Not random?
A: no, not a probability sample

Q: Over 72% of respondents felt more committed to their partners. MEans what?
A: Strongly committed relationship, three qyarters agreed

Q: Alomost 70% felt more accepted by commiunity
A: Clear indication that SS couples were experiencing that social valdiation of their relationship.

Q: 93% who were raising children agreed that the children were happier or better of?
A 28% were raising children in their homes, almost all of these said thier kids were happier. Open ended: value of being part of a family, like other kids in school or neighborhood. Easier to deal with teachers, health care providers: married is more easily understood. People in their childrens lives GOT IT.

Q: This is in MA, right?
A: Yes
Q: Relevant to CA?
A Yes, in the USA, so similar, MA and CA have similar marriage rates. The demographics, children, income, look similar. I can apply MA findings to CA.

Q: Demonstrative 16, on CA. You say SS couples in CA are raising 37,800 children under the age of 18. Where data sourced>
A: Census

Q 1 in 10 adopted children have lesbian or gay parent?
A: YEs, and that means these children will be better off if parents married.

Q: how many adopted children live with G&L parents?
A: I think about 10,000, not sure.

Q: refresh recollection, refer to binder, table.
A: Actually about 16,500 children under 18 are living with G&L parents in CA.

Q: Are you aware of prof orgs that have taken a positionthat preventing SS couples from marrying harms the children?
A: Yes, AMA: reduced access to health care, especially.

Q: Would permitting SS couples to marry have adverse effects on opposite sex marriage? Summarize this opinion, please
A: Yes, I looked at several angles for data to show that opposite sex couples are not harmed. Behavior, treatment, nothing changes, no effect from letting SS couples marry.

Q; Can you translate that into a CA prediction?
A: well, you have to be careful. There might already be trends underway, you want to use the right data, you want to look at other unrelated changes: proceed carefully when extrapolating.

Q: Look at demonstrative 32, please. Professor Douglas Allen presented this report for DIs. Recall?

A: Yes

Q: presenteed an Expert report. RIght?

a: Yes

Q: read please
A: Netherlands opposite marriages have slowly fllen after SS marriage started as part of a larger secular trend.

OBJECTION: Professor Allen has WITHDRAWN
Boeis: wasn’t suggesting as a report, but since it comes from a DI expert, the court can decied.
DI: NO, it doesn;t, Prof Allen WITHDREW, if no longer an expert.

Walker: Is it not appropriate to place before the witness another expert’s opinioin in the field and ask her opinion of the contrary opinion> That’s a fiarly regular way to deal with experts, is it not?

Walker: You may therefore proceed.

Q: I expect this witness to agree with the DIs witness, your honor.

Walker, Absolutely, and without any objection, proceed.

Walker:

Lost connection here:

Picking up cross of Badgett by Cooper after connection lost.

B: (explaining to Walker how different factors are weighed in influence of different factors; race, gender, sexual orientation, education. Questions about measurement also come up about other categories than simply sexual orientaition, forinstance in the Census we have asked about race differently almost every time. This makes it difficult to compare large scale data over time.

Cooper: You wrote in your report about the registered partnerships dropping dramatically in the Netherlands once SS couples were allowed to marry. In the Netherlands, domestic partnerships did drop, but they remained about a third of marriages

Badgett: I wouldn’t call them marriages, though, they are formalization.

Cooper But about one-third of the number of marriages are DPs entered into, right

B: Yes

C: Different sex couples are also more likely to marry thanhave a DP, right? Turn to tab 7, this demonstrative had Netherlands census data, right? Look at this chart, Professor Badgett. It tracks the total number of opposite-sex relationships. Marriages have declined since 2001 as new DPs have increased, right?

B: Yes, the number of actual marriages appear to have declined. But year to year the changes differ delending on which years you compare.

Cooper: But there are fewer marriages and there are more DPs.

Badgett: I need to compare the data to your graphic.
(looks deeply into book)

Repeat question please?

C: Opposite sex couples have used DPs more and marriages have trended downward.

B: Clearly since 1998, the first year on your graphic. New DPs, assess what’s happening, look at other things that might affect it.

C: (reads numbers from graphic)

B: These appear to be the numbers you have cited.

(LIVEBLOG BREAK — lost connection here)

Cooper: How long did you interview these nineteen couples?
Badgett: Interviews were an hour to 90 minutes.

Cooper: All but two of participants had post-secondary education?
Badgett: not sure
Cooper: Was skewed to upper middle class couples?
Badgett: Yes, as I discussied in my book, these are not necessarily common or frequent experiences.
Cooper: It’s not a represnetative sample?

Badgett: It’s not designed to be, as I explain in my book.

Cooper: Did people say it was because DP was a second class category?
Badgett: Didn’t find that, but marriage wasn’t available.

Cooper: AB205?
Badgett: DP law in CA
Cooper: You did a report?
BAdgett: Yes
Cooper: Did your report lend credence to passage of that law?
Badgett: My report analyzed the impact of DP in CA
Cooper: Other states too?
B: Also WA, NM (2005), those are the two I recall.

C: Did you prepare a report for OR?
B: Yes, that was also DP, in the past couple of years.

C: Tab 18 of your binder, please. is that what the Williams Institute prepared for Oregon (DIX2679). In connection with proposals for DP legislation, you have supported those have you not?
B: Supported them?
C: Were in favor?
B: Well I thought they were a good idea and I researched them
C: Did you write newspaper article favoring them?
B: I might have.
Cooper Did you say it was a good idea?
B: I might have
Cooper : Tab 19 in your binder: reprint of your op-ed piece in October 2006?

B: Yes, but reading this now, I don’t think I said in here that I supported DP, just researched it

Cooper: Stats from 2000-2009 (DIX2647) into evicence, your honor.
OBJECTION (can’t really here) (Maybe Plaintiffs Counsel said it was okay)
Walker: Very well, into evidence

Cooper: Look, please at 2008 stats, aligned with months showing the number of DP registrations.
Badgett: I don’t know that these are correct, but I understand the principle, yes.

Cooper: Look at the months of legal SS marriage. when was that?
Badgett: June until the day after election day

Cooper: First full month, July, how many DPs?
B: 356

Cooper: look right above it, 2007, the number is 510.
Badgett: yes

Cooper: Declined, but about 70% of previous year
Badgett: yes

Cooper: Beneath 7/08, look at 7/09, the number is 332, actually about 24 fewer than the previous year.
Badgett: It was an option in 2008 and notin 2009

Cooper: declined from 7.08 to 7.09?
Badgett: YEs

Cooper Next month August (goes through numbers, similarly 70% each year) 286 in 2008;

Cooper Now look at the months for all twelve months in 2008, there’s 4489. The number for 11 months in 2009 is 4067.
Badgett: That’s the number here, yes

Cooper: Now eliminate December, compare first 11 months of 2009 to 2008. 4068 vs 4067 in 2009. So the rate of DP

(Cooper is testifying here, he hasn;t asked a quesiton in a while)

Cooper: CA SS couples chose DPs over marriage because they thought it was a second rate institution?
Badgett: But couples could register as DP AND get married, so we can’t really compare these numbers AT ALL.

Yay, Badgett!!

Now Cooper has another binder.

Cooper: In your testimony and in your report, you say a number of couples won’t DP but would marry.
B: Yes
C: Quantify in this section of the report?
B: Yes
C: "It is possible to quantify theincrease of SS partners who would marry if the could even though they don’t DP…" (reads methodology of Badgett applying MA stats to CA)

Cooper: where did you get the number of SS couples in CA>
B: American Community Survey in 2008

C: Was that an improvement over esarlier numbers
B: Census improved their numbers

C; Reduced the number of SS couples?
B: In MA and CA, yes

Cooper; Of the 84,400 SS CA couples, how many are married?

Badgett: well my report said 18000 were married, but there are others, for instance from other states?

Cooper: Shouldn’t we deduct the couples who don’t want to DP but if permitted would marry? Those non-regDPs….

Walker: I got lost in the numbers

Cooper: The witness has used a complicated methodologuy, your honor.
Badgett: Well, they would be in that group.

Cooper: But in that group, would they be marrying again?
Badgett: But within the 54,000 there are some who are not regDP.

Cooper: Would they be in the group of people who would get married if they could?

Walker: How are we doing on time?
Cooper: Perfectly fine time to break.
Walker: Well, how much more time to you need?
Cooper: About a couple more hours.
Walker: Well, then we had better proceed on a full stomach.

David Dayen will pick up at the FDL News Desk after lunch, at 1:30 pacific time. I will be tweeting this afternoon, follow me at @teddysanfran